![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
net neutrality and market regulation...
Jun. 24th, 2006 12:35 pmGood Article on Net Neutrality and Market Regulation
The above article is good and links to an even better one. It puts net neutrality in such a way that everyone, including my grandmother, should be able to understand.
The wierd thing is, I have a front row seat to both sides of the arguement...but I also get to see how hypocritical the argument of the ISPs is. (or telecos, whatever).
My dad worked for a well known baby bell for over thirty years. He actually started work for them years before the bell break up. I have heard him bitch and bitch about how the state and national regulation of the baby bells was unfair -- why shouldn't they be able to offer Long Distance? After all, At&t and Sprint and MCI all used the lines of the baby bells to do anything. The baby bells couldn't even set their own rates -- that was dictated by the regulation agencies. Even when new local companies got permission to compete with the baby bells in the 90s, the baby bells weren't allowed to alter their rates even though the newbies had no laws preventing them from undercutting them. But the baby bells still had to pay for upkeep of the infastructure.
Fastforward many many years, and the baby bells have swallowed MCI, Sprint, and At&t. In the 80s, it was unthinkable. (though let me give you a hint -- it was the plan all along). But it's happened. And along the way, they've had to fight so hard to be ALLOWED to offer cable tv over phone lines, that they missed the boat on realizing TV would come to the internet regardless. But they don't get to make any money off of it. It's like their realization that all their fiberoptic lines were never going to get paid for when everyone left land line telephone behind in favor of wireless. They didn't think forward enough.
Anyone remember the days when we used to pay for internet access via hourly plans? But DSL and Cable needed a way to convince us to pay a flat fee for internet in the area of 25-50 bucks a month so now we get unlimited usage...
And the ISPs are realizing they underpriced themselves. But if they pass the cost on to individual subscribers like they used to do with long distance, they are going to a) start bidding wars for customers again...which you have to realize based on the way cell phone contracts are made, NONE of them wants to do this. It's not profitable and b) they'll lose customers and never get enough new ones to replace them. Especially since dial up service is still around.
So they are targeting highbandwidth applications and saying the companies that offer them should pay for what they take. Now, I'm for net neutrality. I believe that a) individual subscribers pay for internet access and b) companies pay for internet access and that should lead to c) we don't have to pay any more money to do what we've always done. But I can't know for certain that there isn't the possibility that the pipes have a total volume ability and that should everyone and their dog get dsl, everyone's speed will be the same as dial up. But then, I'd say the ISPs need to pay attention to upgrading the infrastructure unless they want to end up with a set up as old and antiquated and fragile as the power companies have. Trust me, they have the capital.
So here's my position and I hope that politicians are coming to the same conclusions (instead of putting on the blinders that the teleco and comcast funded lobbyists are passing out) -- if network neutrality is not an option that is passed, there will be problems down the road. Big problems. Set aside the issue of whether high bandwidth start up companies will have to go around begging each of the big telecos and comcast to give them a certain number of years to get profitable before they start trying to bleed the stone for profit. Imagine if one of the major ISPs endorses a political candidate....do you know for a fact that you'll be able to access the opponent's website?
Network neutrality is about trust. I don't trust the leaders of any corporation anymore than I trust the government. Right now, the priorities of the government and the corporations don't always line up exactly (well, okay, except for possibly the current president. But that's why I'm glad he and his cronies are president and the cabinet rather than each one being a senate. Balance of power is a wonderful thing). Even so, enforcement of laws is slow and Eliot Spitzer is a folk hero for taking on the music labels and Clear Channel Radio. I don't want my internet to turn into the Clear Channel Radio of two years ago. I went for five years without listening to radio because every channel was owned by clear channel and it was all the same. *shudders* I don't want the Clear Channel Internet.
Network neutrality does not rule out the possibility of the ISPs deciding that bandwidth must be paid for. But we all know right now that people who run websites PAY FOR THEIR BANDWIDTH. I assume the same applies to big name companies that operate websites...and if it doesn't, then the ISPs that sell them their domains need to address that fact with apple and everyone else.
We should not have to pay five times for the bandwidth that we now only pay for once (or twice if you count the fees we give apple or anyone else for the products we buy via internet).
Myself, I still remember the good old days of shopping catalogs and snail mail (or gasp, phone calls). Those options still exist. You can bet the US Post Office hopes that network neutrality is never passed -- all of a sudden, there will be a huge upsurge in junk snail mail as well. (though eeww, getting pamphlets for larger organs is not what I want to imagine).
I hope that the heads of Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and the other major DSL operators realize this. Moreover, I hope our legislators are "with it" enouogh to realize it as well.
The above article is good and links to an even better one. It puts net neutrality in such a way that everyone, including my grandmother, should be able to understand.
The wierd thing is, I have a front row seat to both sides of the arguement...but I also get to see how hypocritical the argument of the ISPs is. (or telecos, whatever).
My dad worked for a well known baby bell for over thirty years. He actually started work for them years before the bell break up. I have heard him bitch and bitch about how the state and national regulation of the baby bells was unfair -- why shouldn't they be able to offer Long Distance? After all, At&t and Sprint and MCI all used the lines of the baby bells to do anything. The baby bells couldn't even set their own rates -- that was dictated by the regulation agencies. Even when new local companies got permission to compete with the baby bells in the 90s, the baby bells weren't allowed to alter their rates even though the newbies had no laws preventing them from undercutting them. But the baby bells still had to pay for upkeep of the infastructure.
Fastforward many many years, and the baby bells have swallowed MCI, Sprint, and At&t. In the 80s, it was unthinkable. (though let me give you a hint -- it was the plan all along). But it's happened. And along the way, they've had to fight so hard to be ALLOWED to offer cable tv over phone lines, that they missed the boat on realizing TV would come to the internet regardless. But they don't get to make any money off of it. It's like their realization that all their fiberoptic lines were never going to get paid for when everyone left land line telephone behind in favor of wireless. They didn't think forward enough.
Anyone remember the days when we used to pay for internet access via hourly plans? But DSL and Cable needed a way to convince us to pay a flat fee for internet in the area of 25-50 bucks a month so now we get unlimited usage...
And the ISPs are realizing they underpriced themselves. But if they pass the cost on to individual subscribers like they used to do with long distance, they are going to a) start bidding wars for customers again...which you have to realize based on the way cell phone contracts are made, NONE of them wants to do this. It's not profitable and b) they'll lose customers and never get enough new ones to replace them. Especially since dial up service is still around.
So they are targeting highbandwidth applications and saying the companies that offer them should pay for what they take. Now, I'm for net neutrality. I believe that a) individual subscribers pay for internet access and b) companies pay for internet access and that should lead to c) we don't have to pay any more money to do what we've always done. But I can't know for certain that there isn't the possibility that the pipes have a total volume ability and that should everyone and their dog get dsl, everyone's speed will be the same as dial up. But then, I'd say the ISPs need to pay attention to upgrading the infrastructure unless they want to end up with a set up as old and antiquated and fragile as the power companies have. Trust me, they have the capital.
So here's my position and I hope that politicians are coming to the same conclusions (instead of putting on the blinders that the teleco and comcast funded lobbyists are passing out) -- if network neutrality is not an option that is passed, there will be problems down the road. Big problems. Set aside the issue of whether high bandwidth start up companies will have to go around begging each of the big telecos and comcast to give them a certain number of years to get profitable before they start trying to bleed the stone for profit. Imagine if one of the major ISPs endorses a political candidate....do you know for a fact that you'll be able to access the opponent's website?
Network neutrality is about trust. I don't trust the leaders of any corporation anymore than I trust the government. Right now, the priorities of the government and the corporations don't always line up exactly (well, okay, except for possibly the current president. But that's why I'm glad he and his cronies are president and the cabinet rather than each one being a senate. Balance of power is a wonderful thing). Even so, enforcement of laws is slow and Eliot Spitzer is a folk hero for taking on the music labels and Clear Channel Radio. I don't want my internet to turn into the Clear Channel Radio of two years ago. I went for five years without listening to radio because every channel was owned by clear channel and it was all the same. *shudders* I don't want the Clear Channel Internet.
Network neutrality does not rule out the possibility of the ISPs deciding that bandwidth must be paid for. But we all know right now that people who run websites PAY FOR THEIR BANDWIDTH. I assume the same applies to big name companies that operate websites...and if it doesn't, then the ISPs that sell them their domains need to address that fact with apple and everyone else.
We should not have to pay five times for the bandwidth that we now only pay for once (or twice if you count the fees we give apple or anyone else for the products we buy via internet).
Myself, I still remember the good old days of shopping catalogs and snail mail (or gasp, phone calls). Those options still exist. You can bet the US Post Office hopes that network neutrality is never passed -- all of a sudden, there will be a huge upsurge in junk snail mail as well. (though eeww, getting pamphlets for larger organs is not what I want to imagine).
I hope that the heads of Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and the other major DSL operators realize this. Moreover, I hope our legislators are "with it" enouogh to realize it as well.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}